Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 215

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Comparing Breast Cancer Multiparameter Tests in the OPTIMA Prelim Trial: No Test Is More Equal Than the Others

Open access
Bartlett, John M. S., Bayani, Jane, Marshall, Andrea, Dunn, Janet A., Campbell, Amy, Cunningham, Carrie, Sobol, Monika S., Hall, Peter S., Poole, Christopher J., Cameron, David A., Earl, Helena M., Rea, Daniel W., Macpherson, Iain R., Canney, Peter, Francis, Adele, McCabe, Christopher, Pinder, Sarah E., Hughes-Davies, Luke, Makris, Andreas, Stein, Robert C., on behalf of the OPTIMA TMG·2016·Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Previous reports identifying discordance between multiparameter tests at the individual patient level have been largely attributed to methodological shortcomings of multiple in silico studies. Comparisons between tests, when performed using actual diagnostic assays, have been predicted to demonstrate high degrees of concordance. OPTIMA prelim compared predicted risk stratification and subtype classification of different multiparameter tests performed directly on the same population. METHODS: Three hundred thirteen women with early breast cancer were randomized to standard (chemotherapy and endocrine therapy) or test-directed (chemotherapy if Oncotype DX recurrence score >25) treatment. Risk stratification was also determined with Prosigna (PAM50), MammaPrint, MammaTyper, NexCourse Breast (IHC4-AQUA), and conventional IHC4 (IHC4). Subtype classification was provided by Blueprint, MammaTyper, and Prosigna. RESULTS: Oncotype DX predicted a higher proportion of tumors as low risk (82.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 77.8% to 86.4%) than were predicted low/intermediate risk using Prosigna (65.5%, 95% CI = 60.1% to 70.9%), IHC4 (72.0%, 95% CI = 66.5% to 77.5%), MammaPrint (61.4%, 95% CI = 55.9% to 66.9%), or NexCourse Breast (61.6%, 95% CI = 55.8% to 67.4%). Strikingly, the five tests showed only modest agreement when dichotomizing results between high vs low/intermediate risk. Only 119 (39.4%) tumors were classified uniformly as either low/intermediate risk or high risk, and 183 (60.6%) were assigned to different risk categories by different tests, although 94 (31.1%) showed agreement between four of five tests. All three subtype tests assigned 59.5% to 62.4% of tumors to luminal A subtype, but only 121 (40.1%) were classified as luminal A by all three tests and only 58 (19.2%) were uniformly assigned as nonluminal A. Discordant subtyping was observed in 123 (40.7%) tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Existing evidence on the comparative prognostic information provided by different tests suggests that current multiparameter tests provide broadly equivalent risk information for the population of women with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancers. However, for the individual patient, tests may provide differing risk categorization and subtype information.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jnci/djw050

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 215

Metadata

Authors
Bartlett, J. M. S., Bayani, J., Marshall, A., Dunn, J. A., Campbell, A., Cunningham, C., Sobol, M. S., Hall, P. S., Poole, C. J., Cameron, D. A., Earl, H. M., Rea, D. W., Macpherson, I. R., Canney, P., Francis, A., McCabe, C., Pinder, S. E., Hughes-Davies, L., Makris, A., Stein, R. C., & TMG, O. B. O. T. O.
Venue
Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Published
2016-04-29
Volume
108
Issue
9
Pages
djw050
ISSN
  • 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2105
OpenAlex
W2344022496
Cited by
215
References
0
FWCI
10.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparing Breast Cancer Multiparameter Tests in the OPTIMA Prelim Trial: No Test Is More Equal Than the Others. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jnci/djw050
The paper
Bartlett, J. M. S., Bayani, J., Marshall, A., Dunn, J. A., Campbell, A., Cunningham, C., Sobol, M. S., Hall, P. S., Poole, C. J., Cameron, D. A., Earl, H. M., Rea, D. W., Macpherson, I. R., Canney, P., Francis, A., McCabe, C., Pinder, S. E., Hughes-Davies, L., Makris, A., . . . TMG, O. B. O. T. O. (2016). Comparing Breast Cancer Multiparameter Tests in the OPTIMA Prelim Trial: No Test Is More Equal Than the Others. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djw050

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.